Religion
Related: About this forumReligious circumcision ritual leaves 2 Brooklyn infants with herpes
The unidentified baby boys became sick after the centuries-old, ultra-Orthodox ritual associated with the bris known as metzizah bpeh.
Under the practice, the rabbi or mohel removes blood from the wound on the babys penis with his mouth a practice city Health Department officials have slammed, saying it carries inherent risks for babies.
The Bloomberg administration has moved to require mohels who perform the ritual to provide parents with a document informing them of the health risks involved. The parents must then sign a consent form.
But several influential religious Jewish organizations have sued, arguing the policy violates the First Amendment.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/religious-circumcision-ritual-leaves-2-brooklyn-infants-herpes-article-1.1308205
Uhm, yeah, not being able to suck the blood from the genital mutilation wound you just inflicted on an infant is a violation of your rights.
There was a recent discussion about what constituted indoctrination or forcing beliefs onto children. If THIS isn't forcing another's religious beliefs onto a child...
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)There have been several stories on this here in Brooklyn.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)It's appalling that a religious figure puts his mouth on a baby's genitals at all.
Fucking disgusting.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)with this and I am curious what the reasoning behind this is? Especially with modern medicine. If someone insists on circumcizing and infant, there are more sanitary ways to handle the bleeding.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Orthodox Judaism is a unique kind of religious batshit.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)What kind of person would insist on mutilating an infant? Are you saying the mutilation of babies is OK as long as it is sanitary?
Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)mutilation. It's a practice that is much debated. I would choose not to circumcise my infant child if I had a male child. But I know plenty of men who are circumcised and they are quite comfortable with the condition of their penis.
Having said that, I consider an adult sucking the injured penis to be unsanitary AND pedophiliac. Inexcusable in our society.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)However, debate does not justify mutilating infants. We all know lots of men who were circumcised without their permission and don't have any issue with it. That is probably because they don't know any different. That's called ignorance. Those who profit from these barbaric practices will keep the "debate" alive, as long as there are those who will buy into it.
Of course this practice of sucking the blood is unsanitary and I defend it in no way. Though, I can see where at one time in the distant past, it may have been considered more sanitary than using local water sources, if available. Pedophiliac, though, really? I seriously doubt that this practice is in any way sexually gratifying, even for the most perverse among us.
Any routine circumcision is inexcusable IMO.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)No parent should have the right to hack off part of an infant's penis.
rug
(82,333 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Do you that poster's genitals adds or subtracts from the opinion?
rug
(82,333 posts)struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)the major mode of herpes transmission to neonates: there are about 400 neonatal cases of herpes a year in the US, with about a quarter of them diagnosed immediately at birth
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/1/e1.full
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)It will affect these innocent boys the rest of their lives, perhaps even destroying loving relationships they may have had otherwise.
Be sure to try and find them later so you can trivialize what happened to them to their faces.
Words cannot express how disgusting I find your behavior. You should be ashamed.
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)to change my mind
Heddi
(18,312 posts)These infants are now infants with genital herpes, who will grow up to be young men with genital herpes, who will grow up to be men with genital herpes. They will undoubtedly spread these genital herpes to most (if not all) partners that they have sexual relationships with. Those people will then become men or women with anal, vaginal, or oral herpes.
I wonder if any of the posters here have ever had herpes. Have they ever had an outbreak? Have they suffered the shame and embarassment of having to tell everyone that you may potentially become sexually active with that you have a highly contagious sexually transmitted disease that is **NOT** controlled via barrier methods? Have these Google Warrior posters had medical providers insinuate that they are "dirty" because they have genital herpes? Have any of these Google Warriors, who can find ten thousand links in a millisecond ever felt the same and stigma associated with having genital herpes?
Moreso, have any of them actually lived through an outbreak? Had to be on viral suppressing medication for the rest of their lives to inhibit outbreaks? Have they ever writhed uncomfortably from the burning, stinging, itching, weeping lesions that spread across your genital and anal region, even if you are on medication? Would rather shoot yourself in the head than itch those weeping, not-yet-crusted over scabs because itching just makes the not-yet-scabbed over time last longer?
Have they ever considered the long-term health concerns that go along with genital herpes? That rubbing your hand on your genitals then forgetting to wash (think: sleeping, have an itch, dont' realize you scratched your junk at 2am) and then rubbing your eyes, transferring the herpes to your eyes which can cause blindness (As an RN, I have seen MANY cases of occular herpes. Nasty nasty stuff). Or how about the increased risk later in life of herpes encephalitis, where the herpes virus attacks your brain causing early dementia and other mental changes.
Oh, but that's okay. It's JUST herpes. Given to infants, without their consent, and will affect them and anyone they chose to be in a relationship with for the rest of their lives.
And if they go on to have sexual contact with women, and the women get herpes, it will affect their ability to give birth via vaginal delivery because of the increased risk of the infant being born getting occular herpes from passing through the vaginal canal. So their wives and/or girlfriends, once they get herpes, are relegated to having c-sections for their children. ANd taking acyclovir/valcyclovir for the rest of their lives.
BUT IT'S OKAY TROTSKY. IT"S JUST HERPES AND PLUS DONT FORGET SYPHYLLIS !!!1!!
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So they got that going for them! FUCKING BOOYAH!
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)2. Circumcised men have lower rates of sexually transmitted infections, including herpes, syphilis and HIV. This is particularly critical in Africa where such infections run rampant. In Canada, the benefit is less pronounced.
3. Circumcised men have lower rates of penile cancer. Cancer of the penis is admittedly quite rare, so the overall role of circumcision in cancer reduction is small."
Circumcision: 5 facts and 3 misconceptions to consider before you do it
Dr. Michael Dickinson
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Mar. 08 2013, 12:00 AM EST
Last updated Friday, Mar. 08 2013, 12:00 AM EST
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So take your red herring elsewhere.
elleng
(130,865 posts)Get rid of contaminated mohels.
NO FIRST Amendment issue AT ALL!!!
Agree 100% abt red herring.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Oh, so they get fewer bladder infections, on average, but THEY HAVE HERPES
HERPES
HERPES
HERPES
HERPES
FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES BECAUSE A MOEHL HAD TO PUT HIS HERPES-LADEN MOUTH ON THEIR PENISES AND GIVE THESE BABIES HERPES. YOU CANNOT GET RID OF HERPES. EVER. EVER. CONDOMS DONT STOP THE SPREAD OF HERPES.
Go put that in your fucking google search box
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)So, a negligible reduction in STI transmission is worth the risk of the child dieing? or being maimed for life? How about we encourage health programs and condom use, and other methods which have real effects on these issues, and not mutilating babies.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)What you are saying and implying so obliquely has completely discredited ..
I am am beyond words right now. I am so mad.
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)Please do not address me again.
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Congratulations. Justifying the totally unnecessary transmission of herpes to innocent infants. Is there no religious practice too foul and harmful for you to defend?
Heddi
(18,312 posts)These babies probably got Holy Herpes. THey should feel blessed. plus, they'll get fewer bladder infections, so it's all good
The pretzel-twisting logic by the usual crew here is staggering. I've seen some crazy things given the "a-ok" or "great post" seal of approval but finding ways to completely minimize these infants being given incurable, highly contagious viral infections that will affect them for their ENTIRE LIVES, and that will affect every. single. intimate. relationship they have, and that will affect every. single. person. they are intimate with...it's staggering. How these folks can sleep at night is beyond me. THESE ARE BABIES. but, who gives a shit? It's just herpes! Who gives a shit? It was done for religious reasons. Fuck off if you have a problem with it.
Sickening. absolutely sickening.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)anti-circumcision comments in the thread (such as "All circumcision on infants should be illegal" or "Cutting off part of a child's genitals counts as physical child abuse" , so it seems entirely appropriate to note in the thread that circumcision does appear to have some medical benefits
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)or so my doctor told me....
dimbear
(6,271 posts)malpractice and mopery.
Herpetic mohelim. Not kosher at all.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I'm sure you see no difference between male circumcision at eight days and religious education.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Then, there's so much of the religious education, which itself constitutes child abuse.
Good News Clubs are one of the topics that came up for discussion during your absence. These people, IMHO, are literally abusing children, but teaching them that they're horrible people, threatening them with Hell, teaching them they must obey God and religious authorities at all times, even if they call for genocide (using the Biblical story of Israel and the Amelekites), all in public elementary schools.
Anyways, here's one of the threads where we were talking about these clubs...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121871865
And you might find this video interesting...
Child abuse is child abuse, be it physical or psychological.
rug
(82,333 posts)And you not only equate them with child abuse but you double down and write "religious education . . . itself constitutes child abuse."
I note you did not say indoctrinate, or brainwash but you hold "religious education . . . itself constitutes child abuse."
And as an example you cite "The Good News Club" a sectarian program which is " the leading ministry of Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF), which creates the curriculum, translates it for use around the world, and trains instructors to teach it".
How you go from a herpetic mohel to a condemnation of religious education across the board is entertaining to watch but it does not enhance the credibility of your opinions.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)But most people don't get circumcised for medical reasons. They get their bodies cut up for religious reasons, as babies, before they can make the choice themselves.
And of course, the mohel in the OP makes it a thousand times worse by using his mouth on the wound, giving kids herpes. There's no justification for that, religious or not. That's fucking disgusting and should absolutely be banned.
But most people move on from being circumcised, assuming they're not given STDs by their mohel. I will say that some of the religious indoctrination is actually worse than the physical abuse of a circumcision.
As for religious "education", in the Good News Clubs in particular, what are these kids being taught? That they are evil, that they're unworthy, that they cannot get better, that they deserve death, that the only out is through absolute obedience, and that they must obey religious authorities even when they're ordered to commit murder. Can you think of a better way to inflict a mental disorder on a person?
Threatening children with Hell, and telling them they deserve death, as young as the age of five. That's child abuse. This shit has driven people to mental illness and suicide. The psychological scars from religious indoctrination last a lifetime.
Read the discussion thread on Good News Clubs in the link I posted. These clubs are pretty damned twisted.
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)It's as easy as going to scholar.google.com.
But really, we can go back and forth on this. I see circumcision as a mixed bag. Sure it makes spreading of STDs harder, but it also impedes sexual sensation, and may have harmful psychological effects.
I can understand the medical reasons, even if I'm skeptical that the benefits outweigh the harms.
But surely, I doubt that you'd support a mahel sucking the blood from a baby's circumcision wound with his mouth. The only point at which I'd tolerate circumcision at all is when it's done by trained doctors in a sterile environment, with painkillers, using modern medical technology.
What these mahels are doing is fucking sick.
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)If the "procedure" consists of a mouth coming in contact with an open wound on a baby's genitals, resulting in the baby getting herpes, what the city's doing isn't nearly enough. Not even close.
I'll call it enough when the mahels involved are facing prison, and all involved are looking at charges for endangering the welfare of a child.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)of "religious education" upthread. )It was actually directed at me, but I chose to ignore it as I saw what he was trying to do.
You are dealing with a dishonest broker.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)The one you responded to is seemingly trying to get you to say something you don't mean, probably to use it against you.
Religious INDOCTRINATION is the forcing of religious beliefs onto children, while religious EDUCATION is teaching children ABOUT different religions and the beliefs people hold.
Rug and I had a very long discussion the other day on this very subject, so his use of the term religious education in place of religious indoctrination seems intentional and dishonest. I recommend you proceed with extreme caution, if at all.
The Good News Club is INDOCTRINATION.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)But this is indoctrination, which is intended to scare and control people, starting at their most vulnerable, when they're children.
This is brainwashing, not education.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)Weird. Just fucking surreal.
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)Posted by Hon. Prophet Benton on May 21, 2012 at 1:29am
Byline: Associated Press
... Citing the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned three marijuana-possession
convictions in Montana because the judge had barred evidence of the defendants' religious views. The court, however, upheld the
convictions and prison sentences of seven defendants on drug trafficking and related charges ...
http://eabicbahamas.ning.com/profiles/blogs/rastafarians-pot-conviction-reversed-court-oks-religion-defense
Meshuga
(6,182 posts)The practice was encouraged in the dark ages since it was believed that cleaning the area this way helped avoid infections.
However, this was soon proven wrong so Jewish authorities discouraged the practice.
The ultra orthodox had to bring it back regardless of the proven harmful consequences. This is sad.
The evidence shows that authorities need to intervene.
One can argue, using the haredim's own religion, that the mitzizah b'peh can be skipped. The mitzvah is fulfilled without it. But we are talking about reasoning with people who freak out when they see women's shoes or a headless female shaped mannequin on a store window.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It is a ritual, and IMO a sick ritual, practiced by adults for their own gratification and is in no way beneficial to the infant victims.
I wonder more about the educated medical professionals, in this country, who perform routine circumcisions on infants. In a sense, I find that to be more barbaric. I guess it's OK for them to pad their pockets by mutilating babies.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)where the doctor does not put his herpes-infected mouth on the penis of the infant, giving the infant a herpetic infection of the genitals?
While it's not "forcing any beliefs on anyone," it's certainly forcing a lifetime infection of HERPES on these INFANTS.
I repeat, since it seems to be getting missed in the cacophony of "THIS IS RELIGION AND RELIGION IS GOOD NO MATTER WHAT!!" apologetic nonsense,
THESE INFANTS WERE GIVEN HERPES. GENITAL HERPES. THEY WERE GIVEN HERPES BY GROWN MEN WHO HAD HERPES INFECTIONS AND GAVE THE INFANTS HERPES BECAUSE THEY PUT THEIR HERPES-LADEN LIPS ON THE PENISES OF INFANTS IN A RITUALISTIC BLOOD-SUCKING EXERCISE.
THESE INFANTS WITH HERPES WILL GROW UP TO BE ADULTS WITH HERPES. HERPES TRANSMISSION IS NOT STOPPED OR DECREASED BY CONDOMS. IT IS TRANSMITTED BY SKIN-TO-SKIN. ORAL SEX CAN TRANSMIT HERPES. KISSING CAN TRANSMIT HERPES. MUTUAL MASTURBATION CAN TRANSMIT HERPES
THESE GROWN MEN INFECTED INFANTS WITH HERPES. THERE IS NO CURE FOR HERPES. THEY WILL HAVE HERPES FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES AND THEY WILL MOST LIKELY INFECT ANYONE THEY HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH. ANY WOMAN/WOMEN THAT ARE INFECTED WITH HERPES WILL MOST LIKELY HAVE TO GIVE BIRTH VIA C-SECTION BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED RISK OF TRANSMITTING GENITAL HERPES TO *THEIR* CHILDREN DURING CHILDBIRTH
Sounds a FUCK of a lot like imposing some beliefs on someone to me. Or, imposing their herpetic lesions to the penises to unconsenting infants who probably, when grown and given the option, really woudln't want to have to live with a lifetime of herpes outbreaks and taking anti-virals to decrease the outbreaks.
But hey, it's just religion, right? No harm!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You might want to read what I wrote again and try to find anything I said supporting the mutilation of babies, be it via religious ritual, or unethical medical practice. Let alone where I suggested hospital circumcisions were "WORSE" in some way. I said I wonder more, because I expect more ethical behavior from medical doctors, than I do from witch doctors.
You might also want to ponder how religious beliefs can be "forced" on a victim who is still an infant.
May I also suggest a nice cup of tea to help you relax.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)the lack of any posts by the usual gang of "DONT SAY NOTHING MEAN ABOUT RELIGION" folks and masters at google-fu who are completely whitewashing the notion that these infants (and not just these infants...there have been others) who have been given a lifetime of an infectious, non-curable disease.
And let's remind ourselves what you wrote in response to the original post. THese are your words:
"Though I do find it brutal and barbarian, it is not forcing any beliefs on anyone."
**it is forcing beliefs on someone, namely, the children who now have an incurable, highly transmitted viral infection**
"It is a ritual, and IMO a sick ritual, practiced by adults for their own gratification and is in no way beneficial to the infant victims. "
So sucking the blood from open wounds on a penis with a herpes-infected mouth and passing on genital herpes to unconsenting infants is a ritual?"
"I wonder more about the educated medical professionals, in this country, who perform routine circumcisions on infants. In a sense, I find that to be more barbaric. I guess it's OK for them to pad their pockets by mutilating babies."
Right there is where you suggested hospital circumcisions were worse. Here, I'll type it again so you can remember what you wrote:
[font size=36]"I wonder more about the educated medical professionals, in this country, who perform routine circumcisions on infants. In a sense, I find that to be more barbaric. I guess it's OK for them to pad their pockets by mutilating babies."[/font]
And I'll tell you how religious beliefs can be forced on an infant: By the use of ritualistic blood sucking from an open penile wound that therefore gives that infant a lifetime supply of incurable, highly contagious herpes. That's about as close to "forcing" something on someone as you can get. No matter what these infants go on to do in life, no matter what religious beliefs they hold or shun, they will always be infected with an incurable, highly contagious viral infection that was given to them during a religious ritual. Regardless of the usefulness or not of circumcision, the transmission of herpes via a religious person's herpes-infected mouth going onto the penis of an infant in a ritualistic blood-sucking...thing...is completely unnecessary and will affect those boys just as much as if they had tattoos put on their face. Moreso, because tattoos can be removed.
And please keep your hugs to yourself. I'd suggest a nice cup of something for you, but I don't want my post to get hidden.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)How you translated it is mind boggling. If you think that infecting babies with herpes is forcing a belief on them, then you must live in some alternative reality.
Circumcision is a BARBARIC practice, period. Performing it under sterile conditions lessens the chance of infection, but does not diminish the fact that it is BARfuckingBARIC.
On a barbarism scale of 1-10, I'll give circumcision in a hospital a 9+, and a penis sucking, herpes spreading circumcision an 11+. That means BOTH are bad. The only difference is that one is performed by a guy who thinks he's obeying God, which is a pretty pathetic excuse, especially for those who don't share his delusions; and the other is doing it because of what? Penile cancer? The spread of STDs? Right, a baby with penile cancer and STDs (barring those who've had their willies sucked by herpes infected mohels, of course). No, for MONEY!!! That's right, the Almighty Dollar, that great American symbol of infallibility. Personally, whether they do it for profit or for the prophet, I think it is equally sick.
Now, I always find a nice cup of tea helps, especially when one is feeling a little hyper or out of sorts. And please, don't confuse a friendly little peck on the cheek with a hug. There's a big difference, and there is nothing ritualistic about it.
Hope you feel better soon.
Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #67)
Post removed
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm sure there are places where you might fit in better, or you could just put everyone on ignore and respond to your own posts.
Anyway, I send you the best of wishes and hope you manage to feel better. Seriously, tea is a wonderful tonic.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Been here since 2001, never banned, read pretty much every day unless something more pressing is occuring, like school or life.
And I have never used ignore, never will, although it's so tempting when I read the apologetic and white-washing regarding these poor infants and their lifetime herpes infection.
But it's just a ritual, right, so it's okay according to you. Much worse that they get it done in a hospital because it's done there for MONEY...not religion
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I whitewash nothing. If anything, you whitewash the practice of hospital/business sanctioned sexual mutiation of children, because their parents request them. Did you ever stop to think why those parents request doctors to mutilate their babies?
Congratulations on your longevity here at DU. May the rest of your time here be even more enjoyable. Try not to take things too personally. You are obviously a good person, but not everyone is going to agree with your take on everything. That's why it's called a discussion board.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Am I missing something here?
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)And it's forcing STDs and worse health risks on the baby - what if the kid gets a staph infection? MRSA? That baby could die!
I absolutely agree with an absolute requirement for circumcisions to be performed in a licensed medical facility, by a licensed doctor, with sterile instruments, and using modern medical technology. There's no excuse not to. If the mohel wants to participate, he can scrub up, don the mask, gown and gloves, and say his magic words while the doctor does the actual cutting.
There is no valid reason, zero, for allowing this kind of procedure to involve contact with the mohel's mouth! That's disgusting and dangerous.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)so therefore it's okay. And the herpes-laden mouths of mohels are known for their sterility, unlike hospital settings which are just...ick.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)!!!11!!11!!
I wonder....is giving babies herpes part of that ritual? Or is that just a 'freebie' given out of the kidness of the mohel's hearts, er, lips?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The practice of the routine circumcision of infants is disgusting and barbaric, regardless of who performs it. I merely commented on the barbaric practice of performing routine circumcisions on babies, regardless of their parents religious affiliation, in hospitals. TMK, the US is the only country that engages in such brutality against the most vulnerable members of society.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Is the transmitting herpes to infants part of the ritual, too?
And these mohels do this for free, right? They're not "padding their pockets by mutilating babies"? Except they are. Not only are they mutilating children via circumcision, but also by giving them a lifetime infection of herpes. How kind of those religious folks.
Glad to see that giving babies herpes gets your seal of approval because it's a 'ritual'
sick. sick. sick.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Child mutilation is evil, regardless of who performs it. The mohel's excuse is "God told me to do it". As sick as that is, it leaves little room for discussion. Now, what's the doctor's excuse apart from padding their pockets? Think about it. This isn't a contest about which is the greater evil. They are both evil. The one who commits evil because he thinks it's God's will, is beyond help. The one who does it purely for money should be indicted.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)They're not doing this for free, yanno. There's a charge involved. Does that make it double bad?
And doctors perform circumcision for many reasons. Like most people, I'm sure you know someone or are related to someone, or are friends with someone or just have a good relationship with someone who is a medical doctor (even if it's your own GP) who would be happy to tell you why MD's perform circumcisions: because the parent(s) want it to be done. Just like why the mohels do it: because the parents want it done.
MD's and mohels are both doing it for two reasons: 1) parents want it done 2) someone will pay for it to be done. Mohels add 3) because god hates foreskins. So Mohels seem to do it for one more preposterous reason than MD's do.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I know many doctors, but none, TMK, who support the routine circumcision of infants. Who sold these parents on such bullshit?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)They'll likely get breakouts on their penises from time to time for rest of their lives.
What is the defense for this? Does religious freedom really include giving infants incurable diseases?
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)By SHARON OTTERMAN
Published: September 12, 2012
Rabbi Gerald C. Skolnik, the president of the Rabbinical Assembly, the international association of conservative rabbis, said he supported the Board of Healths move to require parental consent. He said that direct suction was not required by Jewish law and that the serious risks of the practice were inconsistent with the Jewish traditions pre-eminent concern with human life and health.
In 2005, the Rabbinical Council of America, the main union of modern Orthodox rabbis, urged that a sterile glass tube be used for suction, rather than the mohels mouth. But the group opposes the citys effort to regulate the practice; instead it has asked the city to work with Orthodox groups to voluntarily develop procedures to effectively prevent the unintended spread of infection ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/nyregion/regulation-of-circumcision-method-divides-some-jews-in-new-york.html
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)Evidence that oral suction ritual transmits disease is 'incontrovertible,' organizations state.
12/03/12
Hella Winston
Special To The Jewish Week
The amicus letter was submitted to Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald by the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher on behalf the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Society. It begins by noting that these organizations are gravely concerned about the public health implications of an injunction against the implementation of the challenged parental consent regulation, and from a ruling that the regulation is unconstitutional.
Drawing on medical data from as long ago as 1811 and as recently as this year, the letter goes on to assert that contrary to the plaintiffs claims there is incontrovertible evidence that the Herpes virus and other infectious diseases have been transmitted through direct oral suction and direction oral suction increases the risks of transmission.
Countering the plaintiffs contention that the consent requirement acts as a vehicle to unconstitutionally compel the speech of ritual circumcisers, the groups argue that informed parental decision-making, including the disclosure of risks to the parents, serves a vital public health function and is a Constitutionally-protected parental right ...
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new-york-news/medical-associations-urge-against-injunction-metzitzah-informed-consent
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)Any mohel who does this goes to jail and any parents that consent to it get a visit from CPS.